There is a hospital bomb report in Afghanistan. And it
raised 1 question to me. Is it right to destroy a hospital if your enemy is
undergoing a treatment in there? I wonder what kind of moral these bombers are
following. What kind of moral would justify the destruction of what is viewed as
a sanctuary of many? Generally speaking, inside a hospital there are patients
and staffs who should not be touched since one is people who could not help
themselves while another is people who are conducting a good deed by helping
the prior. So it is a commonsense to not harm this kind of place. Speaking of a
normal value, this kind of conduct is morally wrong. And even if we do not talk
about a moral and instead thinking of a sense of pride of a warrior of old,
it’s still an action below their pride since these people are not capable of
self-defense. Therefore, it makes one wonders if these people are still
human.
_______________________________________
My question is:
Would you bomb a hospital if your enemy is in there?
___________
Reference
If I were an enemy, I wouldn't
ReplyDeleteYour question guides me to concern reason of killing each other.
On this plentiful world, there are also many malnutrition children who try to survive.
On this richness world, there are a lot of people die because they lack of blankets in winter.
On this peaceful world, why people try to take more power by taking other lives?
It's balance to have both sides, but not fair to those poor people.
I think “Yes” if in that hospital it remains only enemies, but it sounds hard to happen like this in reality.
ReplyDeleteThus, I think “No” since the main role of hospital is to treat people, help them, and get them recovered, no matter who they are—good or bad person. That’s why it sounds morally wrong to bomb a hospital where there are patients, doctor and other related people. It is to kill innocent people.
MSF asks for IHFFC investigation this incident. I wish the truth will be found.
ReplyDeleteMSF asks for IHFFC investigation this incident. I wish the truth will be found.
ReplyDeleteNow the US is going to pay a compensation to the victims. So this is it? Is this the kind of responsibility the US is willing to take? I wonder in this US dominated world, when it comes to their own faults, this is the kind of justice we will get? Then US is such a hypocrite. Like pot calling on a kettle. What do you think is an appropriate responsibility the US should take in this case?
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with Na's comments and feeling.
DeleteThe US is wrong.
The US head of state should be criticised because he and his government are not so wonderful as they claim to be. This why free speech is so very important - everyone, but especially those with high status, must be subject to critical judgement, otherwise our opinions about them cannot be well informed or of much worth.
I also think that it is also perfectly reasonable to criticise other nations: it is not ethnocentrism to speak honestly held opinions about other nations, especially when the opinion spoken is solidly supported and soundly reasoned. It is their right to make up laws and act as they see fit, but that does not make their beliefs, their moral values or their actions good. The US has committed great wrong, and we can and should say that. Hopefully, they will listen, instead of dishonestly claiming that other people and nations should not comment on their domestic affairs. But if something is wrong, mistaken or immoral, it is OK for anyone, anywhere to say that.